The prospect of Fullerton disbanding its Police Department has now made the L.A. Times, so it must be real. Also, the City Council meets at 6:30 today when, among other things, discussion of the fate of the FPD is expected to occur.

"If you unbuild it, they will come"

I don’t have strong feelings either way about whether Fullerton should shut down the FPD and move to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. The Kelly Thomas killing did suggest some bad training and management at the FPD — but if one’s concern is about improving the quality of policing then one would have to compare FPD to its alternatives. I am sort of surprised (and honestly so, not for parochial reasons) at the relative lack of talk about approaching the Brea PD for a bid. (To be fair, in the article Bruce Whitaker does mention “exploring other options [including] … looking at possibly sharing police resources with neighboring cities.” I presume that this means Brea. It could mean, say, Anaheim, I suppose, but that would be awfully ironic given the county’s current policing environment and the A.P.D. in particular.)

Talking about contracting with Brea — which I don’t know makes sense for either party — is what I’d have expected if the proponents of a switch were serious. Barring some late surprise twist, Brea PD is apparently slated for departure from Yorba Linda (which will create some new jobs for the painting over of “Serving Yorba Linda” on its police cars.)

Travis Kiger’s photograph (along with others including a very happy man behind him to his right) adorns the online story. (In the interests of full disclosure: on the one hand, Kiger is the webmaster for Orange Juice Blog; on the other, I have opposed his election — and now re-election — to City Council. Good luck reconciling those!) Kiger states “The department has been severely criticized … and the police chief left in the middle of the disaster and people have been jumping ship,” Kiger said. The “jumping ship” thing is interesting; one wonders why that might be — and if it has anything to do with the new Council majority contemplating closing down the joint.

But Kiger implicitly raises an important point: who has the best record of policing among FPD, OCSD, and (I’ll add) the Brea PD? One would think that that by now that question would have been asked and answered. One would also think that the proposals for community policing presented by former Interim and now Acting Chief Dan Hughes would enter into the discussion; instead, mention of “community policing” seems to be met with the sneering and suspicion that Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge once expressed for the wearing of glasses. (No further analogy is intended there beyond the automatic and puzzling expression of contempt.)

Why isn’t there much evident interest in whether a change in who polices Fullerton would, you know, prevent tragedies like the Kelly Thomas killing? That was, after all, the big reason that the incumbents were recalled. (Yes, they did raise the issue of the “illegal water tax” — which was never judged illegal in court and a substantial portion of which apparently was not illegal at all — but come on, folks, the recall was mostly about the Kelly Thomas kidding. You remember that, right? It was just a few months ago.

There’s an easy explanation for that: swapping out the Fullerton P.D. is not about the Kelly Thomas killing. You don’t believe me? Go back to the LA Times article. Bruce Whitaker, who upon his probable re-election in November will have more Fullerton City Council experience than all of its other members combined, expressed other concerns:

Fullerton Councilman Bruce Whitaker, a sharp critic of how the police handled the violent encounter with Thomas, said that although the department needs to be examined, the driving force behind potentially contracting out police services is the $37 million required to operate the 144-officer department.

“The intent here is to find out how much money could be saved and what level of service would be offered,” Whitaker said.”We’re spending a large amount per capita, and I suspect they can outline some savings.”

It’s a money thing. Kiger is even more upfront about it: it’s a leverage thing:

“When a police union puts heavy demands on your city’s finances, you have to be willing to look elsewhere,” Kiger said. “If you’re not willing to look outside, you’re not really negotiating with your union.”

I’m not sure that I’d go that far; it sounds sort of like “if you’re not considering leaving her, you’re not really arguing with your wife.” There are reasons for not challenging the basic foundations of a relationship at every plausible opportunity. But, certainly, the behavior of the FPD regarding the Kelly Thomas killing does suggest that this may be a time when such momentous thoughts become possible — except, remember, this is not about the Kelly Thomas killing. And, as in a marriage where divorce is always on the table, this sort of thing is not good for morale — and good morale is important to good policing.

If it’s not about Kelly Thomas, then what is all this about? I’m afraid that this is part of the “War on Public Employees,” in which wealthy people try to convince less wealthy people who are losing their pensions that — rather than voting raise taxes on the increasingly wealthy to ensure a strong pension system — they should vote to wreck the pensions of public employees so that they suffer too. If public pension reductions were tied to increased taxation of the wealthy to fund government, it might be part of a fair overall package — but that’s not the drum that is now being beaten.

What we hear is howling for the demonization of public employees — not just the ones at the highest echelons who negotiate their pensions directly with the government or have their close friends do it, but all of them — and even mutterings about municipal bankruptcy that might abrogate existing pension obligations. (It also might not accomplish that — and it would be very damaging for a city to swing at that pitch and miss.)

So, cut through the clutter and apparently Whitaker and Kiger and their supporters want to consider getting rid of the Fullerton Police Department so that the city will not be stuck with its “unfunded pension obligations.” (Pension obligations, by the way, are usually unfunded.) Fullerton libertarians would prefer to let Brea or the County itself handle what they see as the ticking time bomb of pension liability. That’s what this is about.

You think that that’s not what this is about? OK — ask Kiger and Whitaker (and Greg Sebourn, the third member of the majority who does not have to run for re-election in November) this: if there had been no Kelly Thomas killing, would they still have favored exploring eliminating the city-operated Police Department and contracting out instead? (I’m pretty sure that the answer is yes, but it would be quite interesting if they denied it!)

(Who’s on the hook for future pension liabilities, by the way? Primarily homeowners and landlords. Renters can fairly easily leave. Of course, if people leave, rents go down, and let’s just say that “the nature of Fullerton changes.” My point there is solely that this concern is driven by property owners.)

So, fine — it’s another battle in the War on Public Employees and you know that I don’t like the Costa Mesa approach. Beyond that, what’s my complaint? It comes in two parts.

The first is the apparent lack of seriousness about making quality of policing — which was the POINT of the criticism about the Kelly Thomas hearing — the primary consideration in deciding what to do regarding the FPD. To have taken advantage of public rage over excessive use of force and then channel it into proposals that property owners think give them some protection from some possible future danger — nothing like the current dangers affecting cities like Stockton and San Bernardino that have declared bankruptcy this year — is just morally wrong. I’ll put this in bold type:

Given the results of the recall election, the quality of policing MUST be the overriding consideration when it comes to determining the fate of the Fullerton Police Department, EVEN at some possible disadvantages in terms of cost.

This is what the voters said that they cared about. Hijacking that legitimate sentiment to lead a jihad against public employees is just flat-out wrong.

But there’s a second related concern, involving the basic issues of democratic representation — and that is this:

Did you see getting rid of the Fullerton Police Department being a big part of the campaigns of the current Council majority in the recall election?

I didn’t. I don’t recall if any candidate actually even broached the proposal. I asked the Council candidates a question about seeking municipal bankruptcy, but as I recall of those elected only Sebourn gave a straight answer — not one with which I agreed, but at least a forthright one. (Even he didn’t campaign on it, though, and I don’t get the sense that my question made a huge splash with the electorate.) But getting rid of the FPD? Did voters expect that to be a result of a vote for Sebourn and Kiger?

I honestly don’t think that they did.

This is a very big decision for Fullerton — a bigger one, I suspect, than voters (and non-voters) thought was at issue this past June. If the City Council candidates didn’t give the public reason to suspect that this was possibly in the cards after only two months — during which time nothing much has changed — then they should be very hesitant to go ahead with it now. It seems like a “bait and switch” on the public.

Some people have suggested that the public should be allowed to vote on the proposal before it goes into effect. Maybe that would work, but I understand why proponents would consider the delay to be undesirable. I’ll tell you what might convince me that the public was behind it, though: Whitaker and Kiger can make replacing the F.P.D. a brightly spotlighted centerpiece of their campaign this fall. If it’s prominently on their literature, and then win, then I’ll be more inclined believe that the public actually does want this to happen. If they lose — well that will tell its own story. But if they won’t release their plans now about what should happen with the FPD — or at least announce what their considerations will be in such a report — then I think that they’re both subverting the public and engaging in shabby politics. I hope for better from their both.

About Greg Diamond

Prolix worker's rights and government accountability attorney and General Counsel of CATER. His anti-corruption work in Anaheim infuriated the Building Trades and Teamsters in spring 2014, leading them to work with the Democratic Party of Orange County Chair and other co-conspirators (who had long detested the internal oversight his presence provided) to remove him from the position of DPOC North Vice Chair of in violation of party rules and any semblance of due process. He also runs for office sometimes.
Unless otherwise specifically stated, none of his writings prior to that lawless putsch ever spoke for the Democratic Party at the local, county, state, national, or galactic level. He tries to either suppress or openly acknowledge his partisan, issue, ideological, and "good government" biases in most of his writing here. If you have a question about any particular writing, just ask him about it and (unless you are an pseudonymous troll) he will probably answer you at painful length.
He lives in Beautiful Bountiful Brea, but while he may brag about it he generally doesn't blog about it. A family member works as a campaign treasurer for candidates including Wendy Gabriella in AD-73; he doesn't directly profit from that relatively small compensation and it doesn't affect his coverage. He does advise some campaigns informally and (except where noted) without compensation.

11 Comments

The Recall should have told all concerned something – New leadership is required.
The Council now has another emphasis – with a new broom sweeps clean approach,
but sometimes before everyone runs off in the heat of the day…..that they simply clean things up that have been problematic in the past. We would start with issue one: Get new Leadership, fresh from someplace else and see if the Police Dept. can be saved.
There are few guarantees in life….but changing leadership has a way of getting folks attention. Especially if the new Chief has “Carte Blanche” to do whatever he wants to make the Department something that the City can be proud of again.

The second change that needs to be made is that of the City Manager. Call it bad luck or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time – The City Manager did nothing to put the Council’s feet to the fire. The City Manager was a nodding doggie in the back window of an Econoline Van. Time to change the whole energy of City workers in general. Let him either step down with a nice parachute or go out under a cloud of doubt.

Thirdly, the Fullerton Fire Dept. has a pretty great history of fighting tough fires and in mutual aid – they do a fine job. The City should call in the Chief and ask him what changes he believes would be necessary. If he is part of the solution….keep him….if not……time for new leadership there as well.

Before the City goes to Plan B and looks to the County…..they should try and absolve
themselves with humanity and certainly without totally upsetting the entire apple cart.

*Dr. D., dealing in rumours.speculation and enuendo is always an interesting take on most issues. The problems however usually remain after all those endeavors.

Seeking answers to questions are not new ideas. The classic and correct answers have been around for a couple of thousand years….just ask Aristotle or Socrates…..

Sometimes, it is better just to keep an open mind, be hopeful and wait. When the opportunity presents itself….try to do your best. People will either listen or not……and all the “I told you so’s ….” in the world will not help. Obviously, your point goes without saying.

They have the majority of the council so they have the votes to enact such a board. I don’t know if this is prohibited by their agreement with the FPOA. If it is, that could make sense; if not, they can just do it. I think that making it about the costs — again, read what they say in the LA Times story — if anything undercuts efforts to get such a board, because it makes the city look greedy as opposed to interested in curbing excessive force and the like.

While I agree with the Winships on keeping an open mind, I also think you should maintain the ability to see things for what they are. Sebourn, and especially Kiger, make no secret of their hostility toward public unions and pubic employees (a trait they share with their ringmaster Tony B and fellow elected Chris Thompson). The recall stopped being about Kelly Thomas long before June 5. They are not interested in providing efficient or effective services–they are interested in providing NO services, in keeping with their libertarian beliefs. Evidence? Kiger’s statement during a candidate forum that employees should be made to pay for the costs of the new train station parking structure through benefits reductions (an odd assertion to say the least). What I found intereasting is that, right after he was elected, Travis chose to post his Council priorities on Tony’s FFFF site, where he was guaranteed vocal support, rather than the City’s website or via a venue of his own. If you want to know how the three of them will vote, just check the FFFF site a few days before each Council meeting. I think you should set up an FFFF-Council scoreboard to see how many times these three toe the Tony line on their votes. Maybe then Fullerton’s residents will realize who they really elected.

noclib1 – Our advise: Ask them directly! Go right for it. These folks are new and need to be forthcoming. If you give them six months to be broken it…..you will get nothing but hog wash. Ask them now about their agenda and ask them directly about those issues you are concerned about. They will either tell you the truth or lie. Either way you get your answers.

Actually, I did that very thing twice, a month or so before the election, posting on this and another blog frequented by FFFF members a set of quite simple questions for the FFFF-supported candidates. None of them bothered to answer, perhaps because they didn’t have answers.